Infamous (2006)
7/10
Worth the watch.
21 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
'Infamous' was the third film (after 'In cold blood' and 'Capote') I saw about Capote, the Clutters and Dick & Perry; certainly not bad, certainly not the best of them.

In 'Capote' Catherine Keener plays a perfect Nell, but here, Bullock seems a little light to do the job. 'In cold blood', we have the magnificent duo of crooks Scott Wilson and Robert Blake, here we are lumbered with Englishman Daniel 'James Blonde' Craig, an incomprehensible choice; he (like Bullock) doesn't do a bad job, but once you've seen (so much) better (Blake as well as Keener)... forgetaboutit.

Toby Jones díd win me over completely. He had to get up against the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman, but he can do it, and he did it - even if I still prefer Hoffman's Capote. Of course Jones does have the right physique for it, also.

By sets, style and atmosphere, 'In cold blood' and 'Capote' win by a landslide. 'Infamous' is certainly not bad in all those categories, but lacks the kind of sobriety, to try and give it a name, that the other two have in spades.

I couldn't really be the judge of which film being closest to the truth. Capote hardly being present in 'In cold blood' did not matter all that much to me, when that film gives much more attention to experiences of Dick & Perry - directly a result of the real Capote and his book. I would guess that, where facts and details are concerned, this one may tell the most about Nell and Truman's visit to the smalltown.

Certainly worth the watch, in any case. A good 7 out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed